Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope. (Read 2697 times)

Courtesy CNN: In his brief order, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote that the case was full of legally irrelevant claims "included solely to increase media coverage of this case" and stir up hostility toward the USADA.

"This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims," Sparks wrote. He urged the cyclist to re-file his lawsuit without "any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material." "Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs or pieces of investigative journalism," the judge added in a footnote.

Smack.

"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

Courtesy CNN: In his brief order, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote that the case was full of legally irrelevant claims "included solely to increase media coverage of this case" and stir up hostility toward the USADA.

"This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims," Sparks wrote. He urged the cyclist to re-file his lawsuit without "any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material." "Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs or pieces of investigative journalism," the judge added in a footnote.

Smack.

While I did read this as a slap in the face to the lawyering "tantrum", it almost sounds like the judge is hinting that there may be some merit.

The Complaint was over the top in rhetoric . No need for adjectives. There are plenty of unadorned facts that suggest this process is a monstrous waste of time and money. The arbitration system is inherently biased (which is why you see arbitration provisions in credit card agreements, securities instruments, and the like). The jury system may be flawed, but it tends to be very good at reaching correct results.

It's going to be an interesting legal case. It will not be summarily dismissed the next time. Bet on it.